IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 25, NO.
3, SEPTEMBER 2010
Analysis of Differential Flatness-Based Control
for a Fuel Cell Hybrid Power Source
Phatiphat Thounthong, Member, IEEE, Serge Pierfederici, and Bernard Davat, Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper presents an innovative control law for dis-
tributed dc generation supplied by a fuel cell (FC) (main source)
and supercapacitor (auxiliary source). This kind of system is a
multiconverter structure and exhibits nonlinear behavior. The op-
eration of a multiconverter structure can lead to interactions be-
tween the controls of the converters if they are designed sepa-
rately. Typically, interactions between converters are studied using
impedance criteria to investigate the stability of cascaded systems.
In this paper, a nonlinear control algorithm based on the flatness
properties of the system is proposed. Flatness provides a convenient
framework for meeting a number of performance specifications for
the hybrid power source. Using the flatness property, we propose
simple solutions to hybrid energy management and stabilization
problems. The design controller parameters are autonomous of
the operating point; moreover, interactions between converters are
taken into account by the controllers, and high dynamics in dis-
turbance rejection is achieved. To validate the proposed method,
a hardware system is realized with analog circuits, and digital es-
timation is accomplished with a dSPACE controller. Experimental
results with small-scale devices (a polymer electrolyte membrane
FC of 1200 W, 46 A and a supercapacitor module of 100 F, 500 A,
and 32 V) in a laboratory corroborate the excellent control scheme
during a motor-drive cycle.
Index Terms—Converters, current control, electric vehicles,
energy management, flatness-based control, fuel cells (FCs),
supercapacitor.
I. INTRODUCTION
ENEWABLE energy sources [such as wind turbines, pho-
R tovoltaics, and fuel cells (FCs)] are expected to provide a
higher proportion of the world’s energy demand in the near fu-
ture. FCs, in particular, are anticipated to play a significant role
Manuscript received October 30, 2009; revised April 5, 2010 and May 16,
2010; accepted June 6, 2010. Date of current version August 20, 2010. This
work was supported in part by a Research Program in cooperation with the Thai–
French Innovation Institute, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North
Bangkok, and the Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy University
under the Franco-Thai on Higher Education and Research Joint Project (2009–
2010), in part by the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS)
and the Nancy Research Group in Electrical Engineering (GREEN UMR 7037),
and in part by the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) under Grant MRG5180348.
Paper no. TEC-00464-2009.
P. Thounthong is with the Department of Teacher Training in Electrical
Engineering and the Renewable Energy Research Centre, King Mongkut’s
University of Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok 10800, Thailand (e-mail:
phtt@kmutnb.ac.th; phatiphat.thounthong@ensem.inpl-nancy.fr).
S. Pierfederici and B. Davat are with the Groupe de Recherche
en Electrotechnique et Electronique de Nancy, Institut National Poly-
technique de Lorraine, Nancy University, 54510 Nancy, France (e-mail:
serge.pierfederici@ensem.inpl-nancy.fr; bernard.davat@ensem.inpl-nancy.fr).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEC.2010.2053037
0885-8969/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE
909
in helping to meet the demands of power quality and reliability
of distributed power generation [1], [2].
It is believed that FC vehicles could revolutionize the auto-
mobile industry by replacing internal combustion engine (ICE)
technology [3]. As reported in [4], for vehicle applications, the
total efficiency of an ICE based on a propulsion system and
FC vehicle comprises the well-to-tank efficiency and the tank-
to-wheel efficiency. Overall, the FC vehicle is more efficient
than the ICE vehicle. The well-to-wheel efficiencies are 21.7
and 13.8% for FC and ICE vehicles, respectively. For hydro-
gen manufacture, there are many ways to produce hydrogen,
particular from wind turbines and photovoltaic cells [5].
According to recent works on FC characteristics [6]–[9],
the specific properties of FCs that result in a delayed out-
put power response are related to processing time through
subsidiary equipments, and slow internal electrochemical and
thermodynamic characteristics. Therefore, in order to supply
electric power to fluctuating loads via the hybrid system of the
FC, an electric energy storage system is needed to compensate
the gap between the output from the FC and the load, in addition
to collaborative load sharing. At the moment, based on present
storage device technology, the supercapacitor (or “ultracapaci-
tor”) storage device has received wide attention [10], [11] as an
auxiliary power source.
The primary difference between batteries and supercapaci-
tors is that the former store energy in the bulk of chemical
reactants capable of generating charge, whereas the latter store
energy directly as surface charge. Battery discharge rate and,
therefore, power performance is limited by reaction kinetics
as well as mass transport, while such limitations do not ap-
ply to supercapacitors constructed with two activated carbon
electrodes, thereby allowing exceptionally high power capa-
bility during both charge and discharge [12]. In addition, the
highly reversible electrostatic charge storage mechanism in su-
percapacitors does not lead to the volume changes observed in
batteries with electrochemical transformations of active masses.
This volume change limits the lifetime cycle of batteries usu-
ally to several hundred cycles, whereas supercapacitors have
demonstrated from hundreds of thousands to many millions of
full-charge/discharge cycles [10].
Previous research works have shown that hybridization of
FC vehicles with batteries [13], [14], supercapacitors (ultra-
capacitors) [15], [16], and battery/supercapacitors [17], [18],
provides cost, performance, and operational improvements, as
well as fuel economy benefits that are attractive and should
be considered. As reported in [19], an FC/supercapacitor hy-
brid source has better performance than an FC/battery source,
because the supercapacitor can more effectively assist the FC
910
to meet the transient power demand, and high-current charges
and discharges from batteries will also have a reduced lifetime.
Even better, hybrid source in a FC/battery/supercapacitor com-
bination has been presented in [18]. A main improvement of the
FC/battery/supercapacitor vehicle is the increase in the battery
lifetime due to reduction of high-current charges and discharges.
However, there are still some aspects of control methods
to be studied, particularly in the area of dynamics, robust-
ness, stability, and efficiency. Recent work on controlling a
FC/supercapacitor hybrid power plant is reported in [16], where
a linear control using PI compensator was proposed for dc-
link stabilization. Design controller parameters based on linear
methods require a linear approximation, where this is dependent
on the operating point. Because the switching model of the hy-
brid power plant is nonlinear, it is natural to apply model-based
nonlinear control strategies that directly compensate for system
nonlinearity without requiring a linear approximation [20].
Differential flatness theory (nonlinear approach) was first in-
troduced by Fliess et al. [21]. This allowed an alternate repre-
sentation of the system, where trajectory planning and nonlinear
controller design is clear-cut. These ideas have been used lately
in a variety of nonlinear systems across various engineering
disciplines including: control of a high-speed linear axis driven
by pneumatic muscle actuators [22], control of cathode pressure
and oxygen excess ratio of a proton exchange membrane (PEM)
fuel cell system [23], steering control of a two-level quantum
system [24], reactive power and dc voltage tracking control of
a three-phase voltage source converter [25], control of open-
channel flow in an irrigation canal [26], current control for three
phase three-wire boost converters [27], design of a guidance al-
gorithm for the hypersonic phase of a lifting-body vehicle [28],
and control of a space robot with arbitrarily oriented joint axes
and two momentum wheels at the base [29].
In this paper, we present an innovative control approach called
differential flatness to manage energy in the proposed system.
This paper is focused on a special control strategy and control
law. This method enables the management of transient power
demand, power peaks, and regenerative braking, particularly in
future FC vehicle applications, in light of FC and supercapacitor
constraints. It will provide a new contribution to the field of the
multisource system. The general structure of the studied system,
the new control algorithm of the hybrid source, realization of the
experimental bench, and experimental validation are presented
in the following sections.
II. FC HYBRID POWER SOURCE
A. Proposed Hybrid Structure
Low-voltage, high-current (power) converters are needed
because of the electrical characteristics of FCs and superca-
pacitors. A classical boost converter is often used as an FC con-
verter [30], [31], and a classical two-quadrant (bidirectional)
converter is often used as a supercapacitor or battery con-
verter [32]. However, the classical converters will be limited
when the power increases or at higher step-up ratios. As such,
the use of parallel power converters (multiphase converters in
parallel) with interleaving may offer better performance [33].
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 25, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2010
In the interleaving method, the converter modules all operate
at the same switching frequency. Their switching waveforms are
displaced in phase with respect to one another by 2π/N radians
over the switching period, with N being the number of converters
working in parallel. The interleaved converter can benefit both
high current and high power density designs. It is ideal for dc-
bus converters and merchant power applications because the
reduced input ripple current and reduced output capacitor ripple
current lessen the electrical stress on the dc capacitors [33].
Fig. 1 depicts the proposed hybrid source structure. The FC
converter combines four-phase parallel boost converters with
interleaving, and the supercapacitor converter employs four-
phase parallel bidirectional converters with interleaving. These
latter two converters are in the high-current and low-voltage
sections. In order to obtain a higher utility voltage level, a three-
level boost converter can be used as a high-voltage section.
The use of a high-voltage section converter leads to better ef-
ficiency of the global conversion structure due to the use of
MOSFET/Schottky diode technology rather than insulated gate
bipolar transistor (IGBT)/ultrafast diode technology [34].
Constraints in operating the three-level boost converter are
to regulate the input current iLoad , the dc-bus output vOut and
to ensure the balance of voltages across capacitors C1 and C2 .
It is beyond the scope of this paper to present the three-level
boost converter. For more details may be found in [34]. Thus,
the following presentation will detail only with the low-voltage
and high-current section.
For safety and high dynamics, the FC and supercapacitor
converters are typically controlled primarily by inner current
regulation loops. The current controls of these converters, as
illustrated in Fig. 2, are similar to the basic current control
of parallel converters. These controls can be easily realized
with linear (PI) or nonlinear (sliding mode) current controllers
[35]. The dynamics of the current regulation loops are also
supposed to be much faster than those of the outer control loops
[36]. These current control loops are supplied by two reference
signals: the supercapacitor current reference iSCREF and the FC
current reference iFCREF generated by the energy management
algorithm presented hereafter.
B. Reduced-Order Model of FC/Supercapacitor Converters
We suppose that the FC and supercapacitor currents follow
their reference values completely. Thus,
pFC pFCREF
iFC = iFCREF = = (1)
vFC vFC
pSC pSCREF
iSC = iSCREF = = . (2)
vSC vSC
A reduced-order model [37] of the studied power converters
is shown in Fig. 3. Now, the FC generator and the supercapacitor
storage device function as controlled current sources. We con-
sider here that there are only static losses in these converters, and
rFC and rSC represent static losses in the FC and supercapacitor
converters, respectively.
THOUNTHONG et al.: ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENTIAL FLATNESS-BASED CONTROL FOR A FUEL CELL HYBRID POWER SOURCE 911

Fig. 1. Proposed distributed generation system supplied by fuel cell and supercapacitor, where p L o a d (= v B u s · iL o a d ), v B u s , and iL o a d are the load power, the
dc-bus voltage, and the dc-bus load current, respectively. p F C (= v F C · iF C ), v F C , and iF C are the FC power, voltage, and current, respectively. p S C (= v S C · iS C ),
v S C , and iS C are the supercapacitor power, voltage, and current, respectively. p F C o and p S C o are the output powers to the dc link from the converters of FC and
supercapacitor, respectively.


The dc-bus capacitive energy yBus , and the supercapacitive 2ySC
energy ySC can be written as follows: pSC = vSC iSC = iSC . (10)
CSC
1 2
CBus vBus
yBus = (3)
2
III. CONTROL OF A HYBRID POWER SOURCE
1 2
ySC = CSC vSC . (4) A. Literature Review: Control of a Hybrid Power Source
2
The total electrostatic energy yT stored in the dc-bus capacitor The energy management of multipower sources has been
CBus and the supercapacitor CSC can also be written as follows: studied recently: for example, by Feroldi et al. [38], who studied
1 1 the control (based on the efficiency map) of a FC/supercapacitor
2 2
CBus vBus
yT = + CSC vSC . (5) hybrid power source for vehicle applications; by Jiang et al. [39],
2 2
who studied the control (based on adaptive control with state-
The dc-bus capacitive energy yBus is given versus pFCo , pSCo ,
machine estimation) of a FC/battery hybrid power source; by
and pLoad by the following differential equation:
Li and Liu [40], who studied the control (using a fuzzy power
ẏBus = pFCo + pSCo − pLoad (6) control algorithm) of a FC/battery hybrid power source; and
by Thounthong et al., whose work concerned a regulated dc-bus
where

2 voltage FC/supercapacitor hybrid source (based on a basic linear
pFC controller operated by setting controller parameters that depend
pFCo = pFC − rFC (7)
vFC on a defined operating point) [16], a regulated dc-bus voltage
FC/battery/supercapacitor hybrid source (based on a basic linear


2 controller operated by setting controller parameters that depend
pSC
pSCo = pSC − rSC (8) on a defined operating point) [18] and an unregulated dc-bus
vSC
 voltage FC/battery hybrid source (based on the battery state-
2yBus of-charge) [14]. Nevertheless, in these structures, there are still
pLoad = vBus iLoad = iLoad (9) some aspects about the control laws that remain open to study,
CBus
912 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 25, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2010

Fig. 4. Concept of control system based on the flatness principle, where y

is the output variable, yR E F is the output set point, and u is the control input
variable.

particularly in the area of dynamics, robustness, stability, and

efficiency.

B. Brief Theory of Differential Flatness

The theory of differential flatness consists of a parameteriza-
tion of the trajectories of a system by one of its outputs y, called
the flat output, and its derivatives. Here, we consider general
nonlinear systems of the form

ẋ = f (x, u) (11)
x = [x1 , x2 , . . . xn ]T , x ∈ n (12)
T
u = [u1 , u2 , . . . um ] , u ∈ m (13)

where x is the state variable, u is the vector of input (control)

variables, and (n, m) ∈ N.
According to Fliess et al. [21], [41], if the state variable x can
be parameterized by output y and its derivatives, an autonomous
dynamical system, (i.e., (11) with time removed) is said to be
differentially flat and admits the flat output y

y = [y1 , y2 , . . . , ym ]T ; y ∈ m (14)

with
Fig. 2. Current control loops of the proposed FC/supercapacitor converters.
y = φ(x, u, u̇, . . . , u(α ) ) (15)

such that the state variable and control variable can be written
as follows:

x = ϕ(y, ẏ, . . . , y (β ) ) (16)

(β +1)
u = ψ(y, ẏ, . . . , y ) (17)

where α and β are the finite numbers of derivative. As depicted

in Fig. 4, nonlinear flat systems are equivalent to linear con-
trollable systems. Therefore, a dynamical system is naturally
differentially flat if it is equivalent to a system without dynam-
ics, i.e., a static system [22], [23]. The aforementioned equations
mean that there exists a quantity y that summarizes the behav-
ior of the whole system via the mappings ϕ and ψ. Clearly, the
advantage of the differential flatness approach is that the trajec-
tories of the system, i.e., (x, u) are straightforwardly estimated
by the trajectories of y and its derivatives without integrating
Fig. 3. Reduced-order model of the studied power converters.
any differential equation [29], [42].
THOUNTHONG et al.: ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENTIAL FLATNESS-BASED CONTROL FOR A FUEL CELL HYBRID POWER SOURCE 913

C. Proposed Differential Flatness-Based Control Hybrid tracking of the trajectory is given by the following expres-
Source sion [20], [27]:

In the proposed system depicted in Fig. 1, there are two
(ẏ1 − ẏ1REF )+K11 (y1 −y1REF )+K12 (y1 −y1REF )dτ = 0
voltage variables or two energy variables to be regulated.
1) The dc-bus energy yBus is the most important variable. (24)
2) The supercapacitor storage energy ySC is of secondary where the set of controller parameters (K11 , K12 ) is chosen, so
importance. that the roots of the closed-loop characteristic polynomial, in
Therefore, based on the previous literature referenced earlier, the complex variable s, is a Hurwitz polynomial
we propose to utilize the supercapacitors, the fastest energy
p (s) = s2 + λ1 s1 + λ0 . (25)
source of the proposed system, to supply the energy for the dc
bus [16], [18]. Hence, the FC (as the slowest dynamic device) Obviously, the tracking error e1 = y1 − y1REF satisfies
functions to supply the energy to both the dc-bus capacitor CBus
and the supercapacitors CSC to keep them charged. ë1 + K11 ė1 + K12 e1 = 0. (26)
The flat output y = [y1 , y2 ]T , control variable u = [u1 , u2 ]T , The optimum choice of the design controller parameters
and state variable x = [x1 , x2 ]T are defined as follows: is obtained by matching the characteristic polynomial p(s)
      to a desired characteristic polynomial, with prespecified root
yBus pSCREF vBus
y= , u= , x= . locations.
yT pFCREF vSC We may set as the desired characteristic polynomial
(18)
From (3) and (5), the state variables x can be written as p (s) = s2 + 2ζωn s + ωn2 (27)
follows: K11 = 2ζωn (28)

2y1 K12 = ωn2 (29)
x1 = = ϕ1 (y1 ) (19)
CBus
 where ζ and ωn are the desired dominant damping ratio and
2(y2 − y1 ) natural frequency.
x2 = = ϕ2 (y1 , y2 ) . (20) It is noticeable that the control system is stable for K11 ,
CSC
K12 > 0 (ζ, ωn > 0). However, based on the power electronic
From (6), the control variables u can be calculated from the constant switching frequency ωS and cascade control structure,
flat output y and its time derivatives (inverse dynamics, see the outer control loop (here, the dc-bus energy control) must
Fig. 4) operate at a cutoff frequency ωE  ωC (the cutoff frequency

  of the supercapacitor power loop)  ωS [43]. Once the flat

ẏ1 + (2y1 /CBus )iLoad −pFCo 
u1 = 2pSCM ax 1− 1−
outputs are stabilized, the whole system is stable because all the
pSCM ax variables of the system are expressed in terms of the flat outputs
via (19)–(23).
= ψ1 (y1 , ẏ1 ) = pSCREF (21) The control law of the dc-bus energy loop detailed earlier is
   portrayed in Fig. 5. The dc-bus energy control law generates



ẏ2 + (2y1 /CBus )iLoad  a supercapacitor power reference pSCREF . This signal is then

u2 = 2pFCM ax 1 − 1 − 
pFCM ax divided by the measured supercapacitor voltage vSC and lim-
ited to maintain the supercapacitor voltage within the interval
= ψ2 (y1 , ẏ2 ) = pFCREF (22) [minimum VSCM in , maximum VSCM ax ] by limiting the superca-
pacitor charging current or discharging current, as presented in
where the block “superC current limitation function” [16]. This yields
2
vSC v2 supercapacitor current reference iSCREF .
pSCM ax = , pFCM ax = FC . (23) For total energy regulation (or supercapacitor energy regu-
4rSC 4rFC
lation), the desired reference trajectory for the total energy is
In this case, pSCM ax and pFCM ax are the limited maximum represented by y2REF . Because the supercapacitor has an enor-
power of the supercapacitor and FC sources, respectively. mous energy storage capacity, and because the supercapacitor
Thus, it is apparent that x1 = ϕ1 (y1 ), x2 = ϕ2 (y1 , y2 ), energy is defined as a slower dynamic variable than the dc-
u1 = ψ1 (y1 , ẏ1 ), and u2 = ψ2 (y1 , ẏ2 ) correspond with (16) bus energy variable, the total energy control law is defined as
and (17). Consequently, the proposed reduced-order system can follows:
be considered as a flat system.
(ẏ2 − ẏ2REF ) + K21 (y2 − y2REF ) = 0. (30)
D. Control Law and Stability Fig. 6 depicts the total energy control loop. The total energy
For dc-bus energy regulation, a desired reference trajectory control law generates the FC power reference pFCREF . It must be
for the dc-bus energy is represented by y1REF . A lineariz- restricted to an interval with maximum pFCM ax (corresponding
ing feedback control law that performs exponential asymptotic to a rated power of the FC) and minimum pFCM in (set to 0 W)
914 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 25, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2010

Fig. 5. Control law of the dc-bus energy regulation for FC/supercapacitor hybrid source.

Fig. 6. Control law of the total energy regulation (charging supercapacitor) for FC/supercapacitor hybrid source.

as well as be limited in dynamics; these limitations ensure safe

operation of the FC with respect to the constraints that are
associated with the FC (i.e., the prevention of an FC stack from
undergoing fuel starvation [7]). Here, the second-order delay is
selected as the “fuel cell power dynamic limitation.”
The proposed control presents a solution of how to avoid fuel
starvation, which allows the FC system to operate at high effi-
ciency. In effect, the fuel flow varies depending on the power
demand, rather than being fixed to a constant fuel flow at a maxi-
mum value (the FC always has sufficient fuel flow). Nonetheless,
the operating system by fixing the fuel flow to a constant fuel
flow at a maximum value has low efficiency because fuel flow
(known as the power input of this generator) is always constant
at the maximum value [7].

IV. EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION Fig. 7. Hybrid source test bench.

A. Test Bench Description
In order to authenticate the proposed control algorithm and
control laws, a small-scale test bench of the hybrid system was
implemented in our laboratory, as presented in Fig. 7. The FC
system used in this effort was a PEMFC system (1.2 kW, 46 A;
Ballard Power Systems Company), as illustrated in Fig. 8. It was
supplied using pure hydrogen of regulated pressure at 10 bars
from bottles under a pressure of 150 bars and with clean and dry
air from a compressor. The supercapacitor module (100 F, 32 V;
Maxwell Technologies Company) was obtained by means of 12
BCAP1200 cells (capacitance: 1200 F and maximum voltage:
2.7 V) connected in series, as shown in Fig. 9.
The FC converter (1.2 kW) and the supercapacitor converter
(4 kW) (see Fig. 1) were both realized in the laboratory. The con-
verter parameters and semiconductor components are detailed
in Table I.
B. Control Description
Measurements of the FC current iFC , the supercapacitor cur-
rent iSC , the load current iLoad , the dc-bus voltage vBus , the FC
voltage vFC , and the supercapacitor voltage vSC were carried
out by means of zero-flux Hall effect sensors.
THOUNTHONG et al.: ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENTIAL FLATNESS-BASED CONTROL FOR A FUEL CELL HYBRID POWER SOURCE
Fig. 8. Test bench of PEM fuel cell system of 1200 W, 46 A.
Fig. 9. Test bench of supercapacitor module of 100 F, 32 V.
TABLE I
CONVERTER PARAMETERS AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
The FC and supercapacitor current regulation loops were
realized using analog circuits to function at a high band-
width. Parameters associated with the dc-bus energy regula-
tion loop and the total energy regulation loop can be seen in
Tables II and III, respectively. The FC power dynamic delay
is shown in Table III. This value has been experimentally de-
915
TABLE II
DC-BUS ENERGY CONTROL LOOP PARAMETERS
TABLE III
TOTAL ENERGY CONTROL LOOP PARAMETERS
termined as having the highest power slope of our FC sys-
tem, where no fuel starvation occurs. It must be noted that,
for the small-test bench, the FC maximum power pFCM ax was
set at 600 W; in fact, the rated FC power considered here is
1200 W. Moreover, these two energy control loops, which
generated current references iFCREF and iSCREF , were imple-
mented in the real-time card dSPACE DS1104 using MATLAB–
Simulink at a sampling frequency of 25 kHz.
C. Experimental Results
The experimental tests were carried out by connecting a dc
link loaded by a traction motor that was coupled with a small-
inertia flywheel and friction load. Fig. 10 presents the waveforms
that were obtained during the motor drive cycle, and show the dc-
bus voltage, the FC voltage, the load power, the supercapacitor
power, the FC power, the supercapacitor current, the FC current,
and the supercapacitor voltage [or the supercapacitor state-of-
charge (SOC)].
The initial state was in no-load power, and the storage device
was fully charged, i.e., vSC = 25 V; as a result, both the FC
and supercapacitor powers were zero. At t = 10 s, the traction
motor speed accelerated to its final speed of 800 r/min; syn-
chronously, the final FC power increased with a limited slope to
its limited maximum power of 600 W. Thus, the supercapacitor,
which supplies most of the power that is required during motor
acceleration, remained in a discharged state after the start of the
motor because the steady-state load power (friction load) was
greater than the FC-limited maximum power.
Afterward, at t = 50 s, the motor speed decelerated to a stop
with a peak load power of about −200 W. The supercapacitor
was deeply charged, demonstrating the three phases. First, the
916 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 25, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2010

Fig. 10. Hybrid source response during motor drive cycle.

THOUNTHONG et al.: ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENTIAL FLATNESS-BASED CONTROL FOR A FUEL CELL HYBRID POWER SOURCE 917

Fig. 11. Setting controllers by choosing the cutoff frequency in frequency

space, where ω S is the constant switching frequency of the supercapacitor
converter of 25 kHz (157 080 rad·s−1 ), ω P is the cutoff frequency of the su-
percapacitor power loop of 450 rad·s−1 , and ω E is the cutoff frequency of the
closed-loop dc-bus energy.

supercapacitor recovers the energy that is supplied to the dc bus

by the FC (600 W) and the traction motor. Second, the superca-
pacitor is charged only by the FC. Third, the supercapacitor is
nearly fully charged, which then reduces the charging current.
After this, both the FC and supercapacitor powers reduce to zero
when vSC reaches vSCREF of 25 V.
To demonstrate dynamic regulation of the dc-bus energy
(voltage) at different nonlinear controller parameters (see
Fig. 11), the oscilloscope waveforms in Fig. 12 show the dc-
bus voltage dynamics (representing the flat output y1 ) to the
large load power demanded (disturbance) from 0 to 600 W,
whereas the dc bus was loaded with an electronic load. The
oscilloscope screens show the dc-bus voltage (the state variable
x1 , representing the flat output y1 ), the supercapacitor voltage
(the state variable x2 ), the load power, and the supercapacitor
power (the control input variable u1 ).
The cutoff frequency (ωP ) of the supercapacitor power loop
was 450 rad·s−1 (equivalent as a first-order delay with a time
constant TP of 2.2 ms, determined from experimentation). The
cutoff frequency (ωE ) of the closed-loop dc-bus energy must
then be lower than the cutoff frequency (ωP ) of the supercapac-
itor power loop, so that the system is stable.
The FC power dynamics were purposely limited (see Fig. 10),
forcing the supercapacitor to supply the transient load power
demand. As depicted in Fig. 12(a), the nonlinear controller gains
used were K11 = 71 rad·s−1 and K12 = 2500 rad2 ·s−2 , so that
the system damping ratio ζ was equal to 0.707 and the natural
frequency ωn was equal to 50 rad·s−1 . As a result, the cutoff
frequency (ωE 1 ) of the closed-loop dc-bus energy was equal to
50 rad·s−1 . As depicted in Fig. 12(b), the nonlinear controller
gains used were K11 = 141 rad·s−1 and K12 = 10 000 rad2 ·s−2 ,
so that the system damping ratio ζ was equal to 0.707 and the
natural frequency ωn was equal to 100 rad·s−1 . As a result,
the cutoff frequency (ωE 2 ) of the closed-loop dc-bus energy
was equal to 100 rad·s−1 . Finally, as depicted in Fig. 12(c),
the nonlinear controller gains used were K11 = 354 rad·s−1 Fig. 12. Comparison of dc-bus voltage regulation (dc-link stabilization) of
and K12 = 62 500 rad2 ·s−2 , so that the system damping ratio hybrid power plant during large load step at different controller parame-
ters. (a) K 1 1 = 71 rad·s−1 and K 1 2 = 2500 rad2 ·s−2 (ζ = 0.707; ω n =
ζ was equal to 0.707 and the natural frequency ωn was equal 50 rad·s−1 ). (b) K 1 1 = 141 rad·s−1 and K 1 2 = 10 000 rad2 ·s−2 (ζ = 0.707;
to 250 rad·s−1 . As a result, the cutoff frequency (ωE 3 ) of the ω n = 100 rad·s−1 ), (c) K 1 1 = 354 rad·s−1 and K 1 2 = 62 500 rad2 ·s−2 (ζ =
closed-loop dc-bus energy was equal to 250 rad·s−1 . Although 0.707; ω n = 250 rad·s−1 ).
918 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 25, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2010

the dynamic response of the control system can be improved

relative to that shown in the figures by increasing the cutoff
frequency, this improvement comes at the outflow of reduced
boundary stability, as illustrated in Fig. 12(c), in which the
cutoff frequency (250 rad·s−1 ) is closed to ωP (450 rad·s−1 ).
As presented in Fig. 12(b), the controller parameters at the
cutoff frequency (ωE 2 ) of 100 rad·s−1 (ωE = ωP /4.5) show
good stability and optimum response (no oscillation and short
settling time) of the dc-bus voltage regulation to its desired
reference of 60 V.
Note that there are some losses (static and dynamic losses)
in the supercapacitor converter (see Figs. 1 and 3), because
the implemented converters are hard-switching converters, then,
the power difference between the supercapacitor and the load
powers (for example, during 100 to 200 ms) can be observed.
To improve the converter efficiency, soft-switching converters
may be effective solutions for future work.
The flatness-based control is model-based (see the inverse
dynamics detailed in Figs. 5 and 6). As a result, it may have
some sensitivity to errors in the model parameters [see (21)
and (22)]. To substantiate its robustness and dynamic regulation
of the dc-bus energy (or voltage), the flatness-based control
was tested with the exact model parameters (rFC = 0.14 Ω and
rSC = 0.10 Ω) and for the case of lossless parameters (rFC =
0.0 Ω and rSC = 0.0 Ω). Comparisons (robustness) between
the accurate parameters and the error parameters are given in
Fig. 13. The oscilloscope generated waveforms obtained during
the large load step from 0 to around 800 W and showed the dc-
bus voltage (representing the flat output y1 ), the supercapacitor
voltage, the load power (disturbance), the supercapacitor power
(the control input variable u1 ). The FC power dynamics were
intentionally limited (see Fig. 10), forcing the supercapacitor to
meet the transient load power demand. Similar waveforms are
seen in Fig. 13(a) and (b).
The dc-bus voltage (dc-link stabilization) is minimally influ-
enced by the large step in load power. Undoubtedly, the perfor-
mance of the control system is hardly affected by the error con-
sidered in the model parameters. It is then possible to conclude Fig. 13. Comparison of dc-bus voltage regulation (dc-link stabilization) of
that the nonlinear differential flatness-based approach provides hybrid power plant during large load step. (a) Exact model (rF C = 0.14 Ω and
rS C = 0.10 Ω). (b) Error model (robustness) (rF C = 0.0 Ω and rS C = 0.0 Ω).
an absolutely robust controller in this application.

D. Performance Comparison Between Nonlinear Control with the dc-link voltage regulation can be written as follows:
Based on Flatness and Classical Linear Control PI−Controller E B u s /p S C p S C /p S C R E F


     
To compare the performance of the flatness-based control, yBus (s) KI 1 1
a traditional linear control method presented in [16] was also = KP + · · (32)
yBusREF (s) s s TP s + 1
implemented on the hybrid test stand. A dc-bus energy reference
was represented by yBusREF (=y1REF ). A linear feedback PI where TP is the time constant of an equivalent first-order delay
control law is given by the following expression: of the supercapacitor power regulation loop (or the supercapaci-
tor current regulation loop). The linear control law of the dc-link
 t
stabilization detailed earlier is portrayed in Fig. 14; it is similar
pSCREF = KP (yBusREF −yBus )+KI (yBusREF −yBus )dτ to the nonlinear control law (see Fig. 5), where the PI controller
0
(31) also generates a supercapacitor power reference pSCREF . The
where KP and KI are the set of controller parameters. main difference between nonlinear control based on the flatness
Because the supercapacitor current loop is much faster than property and classical linear control is that the inverse dynamic
the dc-link voltage loop [so that it can be considered as a pure equation, known as the flatness property (see (21) and Fig. 5),
unity gain, see (6)], the open-loop transfer function associated appears in the nonlinear control.
THOUNTHONG et al.: ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENTIAL FLATNESS-BASED CONTROL FOR A FUEL CELL HYBRID POWER SOURCE
Fig. 14. Control law of the dc-bus energy regulation based on PI control.
Fig. 15. Comparison of the flatness-based control law with a linear PI control
law during a large load step.
Finally, in order to give a reasonable comparison between the
methods, the parameters of the linear controller KP and KI
were tuned to obtain the best possible performance. This result
was compared to the flatness-based control. In this case, KP =
252 W·J−1 and KI = 42 000 W·(J·s)−1 , so that the desired phase
margin was 30◦ . If KP = 124 W·J−1 and KI = 3968 W·(J·s)−1 ,
the desired phase margin (PM) was 60◦ . Fig. 15 shows exper-
imental results obtained for both controllers during the large
load step. The flatness-based control shows good stability and
optimum response of the dc-bus voltage regulation to its desired
reference of 60 V. Although dynamic response of the linear con-
trol law could be improved relative to that shown in the figures,
this enhancement comes at the expense of a reduced stability
margin. From these results, we conclude that flatness-based con-
trol provides better performance than the classical PI controller.
V. CONCLUSION
A new control approach for a distributed dc generation system
supplied by a hybrid source that uses supercapacitors as a fast
auxiliary source, in association with a PEMFC as the main
source, has been proposed. The reduced-order model of the
FC/supercapacitor power plant is flat. A trajectory planning
algorithm that allows for energy (voltage) regulation in finite
time has also been presented. Theoretically, the flatness-based
919
control shows better performance than a classical controller (PI
or PID controllers) for transitions between equilibrium points,
particularly in a nonlinear system.
Experimental results with a small-scale hybrid test bench
in the laboratory have authenticated the excellent closed-loop
performance of this system. The robustness of the proposed
control was demonstrated by test bench results.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank S. Lekapat, who is in-charge
of the process of the Franco-Thai on Higher Education and
Research Joint Project year: 2009–2010.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Hinaje, I. Sadli, J.-P. Martin, P. Thounthong, S. Raël, and B. Davat,
“Online humidification diagnosis of a PEMFC using a static DC–DC
converter,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 617–625, Sep.
2009.
[2] R. Toonssen, N. Woudstra, and A. H. M. Verkooijen, “Decentralized gen-
eration of electricity from biomass with proton exchange membrane fuel
cell,” J. Power Sources, vol. 194, no. 1, pp. 456–466, Oct. 2009.
[3] D. Feroldi, M. Serra, and J. Riera, “Design and analysis of fuel-cell hybrid
systems oriented to automotive applications,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 4720–4729, Nov. 2009.
[4] S. S. Williamson and A. Emadi, “Comparative assessment of hybrid elec-
tric and fuel cell vehicles based on comprehensive well-to-wheels effi-
ciency analysis,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 856–862,
May 2005.
[5] A. Bergen, L. Pitt, A. Rowe, P. Wild, and N. Djilali, “Experimental as-
sessment of a residential scale renewable–regenerative energy system,” J.
Power Sources, vol. 186, no. 1, pp. 158–166, Jan. 2009.
[6] S. Biset, L. Nieto Deglioumini, M. Basualdo, V. M. Garcia, and M. Serra,
“Analysis of the control structures for an integrated ethanol processor for
proton exchange membrane fuel cell systems,” J. Power Sources, vol. 192,
no. 1, pp. 107–113, Jul. 2009.
[7] P. Thounthong, B. Davat, S. Raël, and P. Sethakul, “Fuel starvation: Anal-
ysis of a PEM fuel cell system,” IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 15, no. 4,
pp. 52–59, Jul./Aug. 2009.
[8] P. Thounthong, V. Chunkag, P. Sethakul, B. Davat, and M. Hinaje, “Com-
parative study of fuel-cell vehicle hybridization with battery or super-
capacitor storage device,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 58, no. 8,
pp. 3892–3904, Oct. 2009.
[9] J. Bernard, S. Delprat, F. N. Büchi, and T. M. Guerra, “Fuel-cell hy-
brid powertrain: Toward minimization of hydrogen consumption,” IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol, vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 3168–3176, Sep. 2009.
[10] A. E. Auld, J. Brouwer, K. Ma Smedley, and S. Samuelsen, “Load-
following strategies for evolution of solid oxide fuel cells into model
citizens of the grid,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 617–
625, Sep. 2009.
[11] E. H. El Brouji, O. Briat, J. M. Vinassa, N. Bertrand, and E. Woirgard,
“Impact of calendar life and cycling ageing on supercapacitor perfor-
mance,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 3917–3929, Oct.
2009.
[12] P. Thounthong, S. Raël, and B. Davat, “Analysis of supercapacitor as
second source based on fuel cell power generation,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 247–255, Mar. 2009.
[13] T. Kojima, T. Ishizu, T. Horiba, and M. Yoshikawa, “Development of
lithium-ion battery for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle application,” J.
Power Sources, vol. 189, no. 1, pp. 859–863, Apr. 2009.
[14] P. Thounthong, S. Raël, and B. Davat, “Control algorithm of fuel cell
and batteries for distributed generation system,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 148–155, Jan. 2008.
[15] M. Uzunoglu and M. S. Alam, “Modeling and analysis of an FC/UC
hybrid vehicular power system using a novel-wavelet-based load sharing
algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 263–272,
Mar. 2008.
[16] P. Thounthong, S. Raël, and B. Davat, “Control strategy of fuel cell and su-
percapacitors association for distributed generation system,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 3225–3233, Dec. 2007.
920 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 25, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2010
[17] E. Schaltz, A. Khaligh, and P. O. Rasmussen, “Influence of bat-
tery/ultracapacitor energy-storage sizing on battery lifetime in a fuel
cell hybrid electric vehicle,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 58, no. 8,
pp. 3882–3891, Oct. 2009.
[18] P. Thounthong, S. Raël, and B. Davat, “Energy management of fuel
cell/battery/supercapacitor hybrid power source for vehicle applications,”
J. Power Sources, vol. 193, no. 1, pp. 376–385, Aug. 2009.
[19] P. Thounthong and S. Raël, “The benefits of hybridization,” IEEE Ind.
Electron. Mag., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 25–37, Sep. 2009.
[20] A. Payman, S. Pierfederici, and F. Meibody-Tabar, “Energy control of
supercapacitor/fuel cell hybrid power source,” Energy Convers. Manage.,
vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1637–1644, Jun. 2008.
[21] M. Fliess, J. Lévine, Ph. Martin, and P. Rouchon, “Flatness and defect
of nonlinear systems: Introductory theory and examples,” Int. J. Contr.,
vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 1327–1361, 1995.
[22] H. Aschemann and D. Schindele, “Sliding-mode control of a high-speed
linear axis driven by pneumatic muscle actuators,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 3855–3864, Nov. 2008.
[23] M. A. Danzer, J. Wilhelm, H. Aschemann, and E. P. Hofer, “Model-
based control of cathode pressure and oxygen excess ratio of a PEM
fuel cell system,” J. Power Sources, vol. 176, no. 2, pp. 515–522,
2008.
[24] P. S. P. da Silva and P. Rouchon, “Flatness-based control of a single qubit
gate,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 775–779, Apr.
2008.
[25] E. Song, A. F. Lynch, and V. Dinavahi, “Experimental validation of non-
linear control for a voltage source converter,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1135–1144, Sep. 2009.
[26] T. Rabbani, S. Munier, D. Dorchies, P. Malaterre, A. Bayen, and X. Litrico,
“Flatness-based control of open-channel flow in an irrigation canal using
scada,” IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 22–30, Oct. 2009.
[27] A. Gensior, H. Sira-Ramı́rez, J. Rudolph, and H. Güldner, “On some
nonlinear current controllers for three-phase boost rectifiers,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 360–370, Feb. 2009.
[28] V. Morio, F. Cazaurang, and Ph. Vernis, “Flatness-based hypersonic reen-
try guidance of a lifting-body vehicle,” Control Eng. Practice, vol. 17,
no. 5, pp. 588–596, May 2009.
[29] S. K. Agrawal, K. Pathak, J. Franch, R. Lampariello, and G. Hirzinger,
“A differentially flat open-chain space robot with arbitrarily oriented joint
axes and two momentum wheels at the base,” IEEE Trans. Automat.
Contr., vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 2185–2191, Sep. 2009.
[30] K. Rajashekara, J. Grieve, and D. Daggett, “Hybrid fuel cell power in
aircraft,” IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 54–60, Jul./Aug.
2008.
[31] S. Y. Choe, J. W. Ahn, J. G. Lee, and S. H. Baek, “Dynamic simulator
for a PEM fuel cell system with a PWM DC/DC converter,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 669–680, Jun. 2008.
[32] S. M. Muyeen, R. Takahashi, T. Murata, and J. Tamura, “Integration of
an energy capacitor system with a variable-speed wind generator,” IEEE
Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 740–749, Sep. 2009.
[33] P. Thounthong, B. Davat, S. Raël, and P. Sethakul, “Fuel cell high-power
applications,” IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 32–46, Mar.
2009.
[34] M. H. Todorovic, L. Palma, and P. N. Enjeti, “Design of a wide input
range DC–DC converter with a robust power control scheme suitable for
fuel cell power conversion,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 3,
pp. 1247–1255, Mar. 2008.
[35] M. Datta, T. Senjyu, A. Yona, T. Funabashi, and C. H. Kim, “A coordinated
control method for leveling PV output power fluctuations of PV–diesel
hybrid systems connected to isolated power utility,” IEEE Trans. Energy
Convers., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 153–162, Mar. 2009.
[36] W. Hu, Z. Chen, Y. Wang, and Z. Wang, “Flicker mitigation by active
power control of variable-speed wind turbines with full-scale back-to-
back power converters,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 24, no. 3,
pp. 640–649, Sep. 2009.
[37] S. D. Sudhoff, K. A. Corzine, S. F. Glover, H. J. Hegner, and H. N. Robey,
Jr, “DC link stabilized field oriented control of electric propulsion sys-
tems,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 27–33, Mar.
1998.
[38] D. Feroldi, M. Serra, and J. Riera, “Energy management strategies based
on efficiency map for fuel cell hybrid vehicles,” J. Power Sources, vol. 190,
no. 2, pp. 387–401, May 2009.
[39] Z. Jiang, L. Gao, and R. A. Dougal, “Adaptive control strategy for active
power sharing in hybrid fuel cell/battery power sources,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 507–515, Jun. 2007.
[40] C. Y. Li and G. P. Liu, “Optimal fuzzy power control and management
of fuel cell/battery hybrid vehicles,” J. Power Sources, vol. 192, no. 2,
pp. 525–533, Jul. 2009.
[41] M. Fliess, J. Lévine, Ph. Martin, and P. Rouchon, “A lie–bäcklund ap-
proach to equivalence and flatness of nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans.
Automat. Contr., vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 922–937, May 1999.
[42] G. Millérioux and J. Daafouz, “Flatness of switched linear discrete-time
systems,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 615–619, Mar.
2009.
[43] C. P. Mudannayake and M. F. Rahman, “Control design for an inductions
machine based 42 V integrated starter alternator,” IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag.,
vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 14–25, Jul./Aug. 2009.
Phatiphat Thounthong (M’09) received the B.S.
and M.E. degrees in electrical engineering from King
Mongkut’s Institute of Technology North Bangkok
(KMITNB), Bangkok, Thailand, in 1996 and 2001,
respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engi-
neering from the Institut National Polytechnique de
Lorraine (INPL), Nancy Université, Nancy-Lorraine,
France, in 2005.
From 1997 to 1998, he was an Electrical Engineer
with the E.R. Metal Works Ltd. (EKARAT Group),
Thailand. From 1998 to 2002, he was an Assistant
Lecturer with KMITNB. Since 2008, he has been an Assistant Professor and the
Director of the Department of Teacher Training in Electrical Engineering, Fac-
ulty of Technical Education, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North
Bangkok (KMUTNB), Bangkok, Thailand, where he is also the Head of the Re-
newable Energy Research Laboratory (sponsored by KMUTNB and the French
Embassy in Bangkok). He is also an Invited Assistant Professor at INPL. He is
the author or coauthor of more than 50 journal and conference papers, as well
as a book entitled Fuel Cell Energy Source for Electric Vehicle Applications
(New York: Nova Science, 2008). He has also contributed for Recent Advances
in Supercapacitors (Kerala: Transworld Research Network, 2006), Progress in
Fuel Cell Research (New York: Nova Science, 2007), and Polymer Electrolyte
Membrane Fuel Cells and Electrocatalysts (New York: Nova Science, 2009).
His current research interests include power electronics, electric drives, and
electrical devices (fuel cells, batteries, and supercapacitors).
Serge Pierfederici received the Engineer degree
in electrical engineering from École Nationale
Supérieure en Électricité et Mécanique, Nancy-
Lorraine, France, in 1994, and the Ph.D. degree
in electrical engineering and the Habilitation à
Diriger des Recherches (HDR) degree from the In-
stitut National Polytechnique de Lorraine (INPL),
Nancy Université, Nancy-Lorraine, in 1998 and 2007,
respectively.
Since 1999, he has been an Associate Professor
at INPL. His current research interests include power
electronics, stability study of distributed power system, and the control of mul-
tisources and multiload systems.
Bernard Davat (M’89) received the Engi-
neer degree in electrical engineering from
Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Electrotechnique,
d’Electronique, d’Informatique, d’Hydraulique et des
Telecommunications, Toulouse, France, in 1975, and
the Ph.D. and Docteur d’Etat degrees in electri-
cal engineering from Institut National Polytechnique
de Toulouse (INPT), Toulouse, in 1978 and 1984,
respectively.
From 1980 to 1988, he was a Researcher at French
National Center for Scientific Research, Laboratoire
d’Electrotechnique et d’Electronique Industrielle. Since 1988, he has been a
Professor at Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy Université,
Nancy-Lorraine, France. His current research interests include power electron-
ics, drives, and new electrical devices (fuel cell and supercapacitor).